Attic Inscriptions Online

Decree for Klazomenai, 387/6 BC

Theodotos was archon (387/6). Paramythos son of Philagros of Erchia was secretary.
The People decided. Theodotos was archon. KekropisVII was in prytany.
Paramythos was secretary. Daiphron was chairman. Poliagros
proposed: to praise the People of Klazomenai(5) because they are enthusiastic (prothumos) towards the city of Athens both
now and in time past.[2] Concerning what they say, the
People shall decide that, if the Klazomenians pay (hupotelontas) the
five percent tax of the time of Thrasyboulos,[3] then as regards a treaty (spondōg) or no treaty (aspondōn) with those at Chyton, and the hostages whom the Klazomenians have
(10) from those at Chyton, the People of Klazomenai shall have
the authority to decide (kurion), and it shall not be permitted for any of the generals either
to reinstate (katagein) the exiles without the consent of the People of Klazomenai or to expel (exelaunen) any of those who remain;[4] and concerning a governor (archontos) and a garrison the People shall vote immediately
(15) whether they ought to install them in Klazomenai (eg Klazomenais) or whether
the People of Klazomenai should independently determine (autokratora) these matters,
as to whether they wish to receive them, or not;[5] and as regards the cities
from which the Klazomenians import grain, [Phokaia? and
Chios? and] Smyrna, it shall be within the treaty (enspondon) for them [to sail into?] (20) [their harbours?];[6] and the generals . . . shall take care that there is a truce or treaty (spondai) . . . . . . the same as for the Athenians.[7] . . . . . . them not paying taxes (telē ouch hupotelountas) . . . . . . nor [receiving] a governor (archonta) . . . (25) . . . the Athenians;[8] and concerning . . . . . . the king shall be[9] . . . . . . decree (?) . . . . . .

[1] We amend ll. 8-18 of the text given in RO 18 to include the new fragment d, first published by Matthaiou 2004-2009, which confirms (l. 11) that there were Athenian generals operating in the area of Klazomenai at this time (cf. l. 20). The lower part of a relief above the text survives, depicting two facing sheep, probably rams, a symbol of Klazomenai also attested on the city's coinage. Such pictorial symbols helped convey at a glance, in the vast mass of inscriptions on the acropolis, the identity of a foreign city to which an inscription related.[2] By a series of vigorous diplomatic and military actions ca. 390 BC Thrasyboulos of Steiria, who had been leader of the democratic resistance to the Thirty in 404/3, re-established the Athenian presence in the Aegean (Xen. Hell. 4.8.25-30, Diod. 14.94 and 99.4). Thrasyboulos himself was killed in a raid on Aspendos in 389, but, as this decree clearly shows, the Athenian presence continued to be felt on the coast of Asia Minor until the King's Peace (= "Peace of Antalkidas") brought the Corinthian War to an end in 386. According to that Peace the Persians, with the support of the Spartans, and the agreement of Athens (whose grain supply was threatened by the actions of the Spartan Antalkidas in the Hellespont, cf. RO 19), Thebes, Corinth and Argos, re-established control over the Greeks of Asia Minor, explicitly including Klazomenai (Xen. Hell. 5.1.31). Under the terms of the Peace, cities on the mainland of Asia Minor were ceded to the Persians, while the islands off the coast remained free. Klazomenai had to be mentioned specifically, as it was in fact an island. Just off the south coast of the Gulf of Smyrna (so close to the mainland that it is now joined to it by a causeway), it was a location used for assembling naval forces (cf. Diod. 15.2.2 with Stylianou ad loc.; S. Rudzicka, Phoen. 37, 1983, 104-108), and therefore of strategic importance to the Persians. Klazomenai had also been a tribute-paying member of the Delian League (for a brief history see L. Rubinstein, Inventory no. 847). After 412 there had been protracted stasis between the pro-Athenian faction on the island and a pro-Spartan faction in exile at Daphnous, an episode of which is documented by IG I3 119. This inscription, the next significant document of the city's history, also shows a city in stasis, this time between a (democratic?) faction in control in the city and dissidents in Chyton on the mainland immediately opposite. Aristotle Pol. 1303 b 9 notes the stasis between Klazomenians on the island and in Chyton as exemplary of division in a city caused by geographical factors. RO 17, relating to neighbouring Erythrai, belongs in the same general context as this decree.[3] The wording here makes clear that this decree was passed in response to representations from Klazomenai, probably by envoys in person. There is no specific evidence for the nature of this tax, but it may have been comparable with the 5% harbour tax which replaced the tribute of the Delian League from 413 BC (Thuc. 7.28.4). The deal is that if Klazomenai recognises Athenian hegemony in this way, the Athenians will leave it to make its own arrangements in relation to the dissidents at Chyton.[4] Nothing more is known about this episode.[5] The potential installation of a governor and garrison suggests that some Athenians were keen to pick up where they had left off with the running of their 5th-century empire; but from this clause, providing for a separate Assembly vote on this specific issue, it is clear how controversial such a step might be, both in Athens, and in the affected city, which would, as perhaps here, be divided between pro-Athenian and anti-Athenian factions. At RO 22, ll. 21-23, Athens was implicitly to acknowledge governors and garrisons as an oppressive aspect of her 5th cent. empire. Note that this decree is non-probouleumatic, i.e. does not merely ratify the Council's proposal, but was recast and actively debated in the Assembly. In the fourth-century (though not the fifth) non-probouleumatic decrees are indicated by enactment (l. 2) and motion (ll. 6-7) formulae mentioning only the People, not the Council and People.[6] The restorations here are speculative. As alternatives to Phokaia and Chios, Miletos and Chios have been suggested as cities in the region, from which, along with Smyrna, Klazomenai might have imported grain.[7] From l. 20 onwards our translation is based on fewer speculative restorations than printed in previous editions. This clause has been restored as an obligation on the Athenian generals operating in the area (now known from fr. d to have been mentioned also in l. 11) to negotiate a treaty or truce (spondai) with the Persians on the same terms as applied to Athens. This may be right, but it can not be ruled out that the truce envisaged was with other cities, groups or powers operating in the region (e.g. Sparta).[8] Ll. 22 ff. seems to be a record of the separate vote on the issue of governor and garrison provided for in l. 14. The sense of l. 23 cannot be reconstructed, but seems to be another reference to the 5% tax mentioned in l. 8. L. 24 seems to imply that it was decided not to install an Athenian governor.[9] Probably a reference to the Persian king (Artaxerxes II) under whose aegis the "King's Peace" was shortly to be agreed.